Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Or the 4th Brigade could be an amphibious one with a lighter footprint.

2 Sqn with Amphibious Vehicles (+ maybe another one with Bushmaster)
2 Infantry Battalions
2 Arty Batteries+
1 strengthened Engineer Coy
1 Support BN with Beachmaster units and other units necessary for amphibious ops.

You would need fewer vehicles and men, and could consequently adapt to amphibious warfare.

There isn’t a need to create a lighter unit to get them from ship to shore. The amphib task force has to operate ashore like any other unit and they need the same things as the others. Arguably they need more combat power than other brigades because they are the spearhead. Also the limitations on the LHDs are not weight but density. So heavier combat assets like tanks and SPGs provide a lot more combat power per square meter of garage space than gun buggies and towed artillery.

If 2 RAR BG was expanded to an amphibious brigade it like 2 RAR should be structured as per the other brigades and battlegroups. There is of course a case for equipping the APC squadron with an Amtrac and adding co-locating with a 10 FSB type unit for amphibious logistics support capability.

 

[aussienscale]

There isn’t a need to create a lighter unit to get them from ship to shore. The amphib task force has to operate ashore like any other unit and they need the same things as the others. Arguably they need more combat power than other brigades because they are the spearhead. Also the limitations on the LHDs are not weight but density. So heavier combat assets like tanks and SPGs provide a lot more combat power per square meter of garage space than gun buggies and towed artillery.

If 2 RAR BG was expanded to an amphibious brigade it like 2 RAR should be structured as per the other brigades and battlegroups. There is of course a case for equipping the APC squadron with an Amtrac and adding co-locating with a 10 FSB type unit for amphibious logistics support capability.

Seems to be a lot more chatter about Amtracks and the possibility, do you think the powers to be are coming around to the idea ? I really think with the LHD's not too far off, the USMC detachment coming to Darwin etc that it would not be too long for us to realise they would be handy.

The AFV is still some time off, could there be a case for us to get some of the AAV's ? Although not sure if they would be willing to let any go ?

What type of numbers would we be looking at ? 14 x AAVP-7A1's, 4 x AAVC-7A1's and 4 x AAVR-7A1's

 

[Volkodav]

Seems to be a lot more chatter about Amtracks and the possibility, do you think the powers to be are coming around to the idea ? I really think with the LHD's not too far off, the USMC detachment coming to Darwin etc that it would not be too long for us to realise they would be handy.

The AFV is still some time off, could there be a case for us to get some of the AAV's ? Although not sure if they would be willing to let any go ?

What type of numbers would we be looking at ? 14 x AAVP-7A1's, 4 x AAVC-7A1's and 4 x AAVR-7A1's

Isn't the idea behind the LHDs being able to operate from over the horizon which wouldn't really suit AAVs?

IMHO if we want AAVs then we would also need something more along the lines of a LPD to operate them in closer to the shore. With the landing craft from the LHDs and support provided by the LCH replacements we should be able to operate pretty much all the heavy gear the Army currently uses.

 

[Goknub]

Unless the army wants an entire battalion capable of fighting across the beach in AAVs there isn't really a need for a dedicated amphibious force.

The intervention in Timor in 2006 was the largest amphib op since WW2 and involved a company each from 1, 2, 3 and 4 FD Regt plus all the extras. Apart from a lack of space it didn't require any special units.

Conducting joint exercises would be enough, as long as Army and RAN remember that Joint means more than just operating in the same AO.

 

[Goknub]

While I do think a handful of AAVs would come in handy there are higher priorities for a shrinking budget.

The better option would be claim a few of the future patrol ships as amphibious escort ships. Basically cover them in Kevlar and install a quantity of auto-cannons and turreted mortars/guns so they can suppress any direct opposition to a landing force.

Between them, the Tigers and any ANZACs there would be plenty of firepower to clear a landing zone.

 

[Raven22]

Or the 4th Brigade could be an amphibious one with a lighter footprint.

2 Sqn with Amphibious Vehicles (+ maybe another one with Bushmaster)
2 Infantry Battalions
2 Arty Batteries+
1 strengthened Engineer Coy
1 Support BN with Beachmaster units and other units necessary for amphibious ops.

You would need fewer vehicles and men, and could consequently adapt to amphibious warfare.

Why create an amphibious brigade that's bigger than our ability to lift with our amphibious ships?

Seems to be a lot more chatter about Amtracks and the possibility, do you think the powers to be are coming around to the idea ? I really think with the LHD's not too far off, the USMC detachment coming to Darwin etc that it would not be too long for us to realise they would be handy.

The AFV is still some time off, could there be a case for us to get some of the AAV's ? Although not sure if they would be willing to let any go ?

There's not much point getting amtracs if we are no going to get everything else we need for a proper beach assault capability. The USMC Amtracs are buggered anyway - they are flat out keeping them running themselves (a mate of mine got stranded in one on the latest RIMPAC). I don't think we'd be too keen to buy some and pay to keep them running for such a niche capability.

The intervention in Timor in 2006 was the largest amphib op since WW2 and involved a company each from 1, 2, 3 and 4 FD Regt plus all the extras. Apart from a lack of space it didn't require any special units.

The intervention in 2006 was not amphibious operation anymore than INTRERFET in 1999 was. If we benchmark that as our future requirement we'll be going backwards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Isn't the idea behind the LHDs being able to operate from over the horizon which wouldn't really suit AAVs?

Well the EFV was designed to be an over the horizon AAV with its >20 knot sea speed. The new Amphibious Comabt Vehicle (ACV) which is realistically the only option for a future Australian AAV has a requirement for “stand off deployment” or more specifically “from launch distances at, or beyond the horizon (minimum of 12 miles) with speed of not less than 8 knots”. Such a speed is about the same as laden LCM-1E so there would be no need for a different ship to shore separation as the LCMs.

But anyway since AAVs are a one way ship to shore there is no reason why on a first wave the LHD (or LHDs) can’t just come in close to drop them off and then retire to their safe location. The advantage of an AAV is in a wider choice of beaches able to be crossed compared to LCM offload, much high speed in crossing the beach, ability to do so under fire and their use as APCs ashore so the LCMs don’t need to carry to shore the battle group’s APC requirements.

Why create an amphibious brigade that's bigger than our ability to lift with our amphibious ships?

So the amphibious battle group can rotate within the brigade to improve readiness. If said brigade was co-located with the LHDs at Darwin it would have a much higher response time for the full amphib task force than the current initial plans.

 

[ADMk2]

While I do think a handful of AAVs would come in handy there are higher priorities for a shrinking budget.

The better option would be claim a few of the future patrol ships as amphibious escort ships. Basically cover them in Kevlar and install a quantity of auto-cannons and turreted mortars/guns so they can suppress any direct opposition to a landing force.

Between them, the Tigers and any ANZACs there would be plenty of firepower to clear a landing zone.

Which would be fine if this opposition force this ship is meant to suppress is stacked on the beach itself, but not if they are inland, or heaven forbid able to maneuver.

That is the point of the AAV as Abe has mentioned. It frees up our LCM-1E's to bring M1A1's, arty and supporting forces straight to shore, whilst our main maneuver force goes straight onto land and begins operations against this enemy, with the maneuver, protection and firepower that a light amphibious armoured vehicle capability would give us.

If all our force has to come onto land via helo or LCM-1E it's going to be a slow process, no more capable in reality than "admin landings".

An AAV gives us an ability to land even if an enemy doesn't want us to and we're contemplating a single squadron's worth of armoured amphibious lift here.

We're not talking about creating a USMC level capability...

Raven, while you're right about the age and decrepit nature of the current USMC AAV-7's, Samsung are producing new-build and upgraded Korean AAV-7A1's, whilst BAE are studying a refurbished and upgraded USMC fleet of AAV-7's. There are options to improve the capabilities of these vehicles.

I'm sure if we purchased 18-24 of them at some future point, we could probably afford to have them refurbished and upgraded via BAE to make them reasonably reliable and capable vehicles.

 

[Raven22]

So the amphibious battle group can rotate within the brigade to improve readiness. If said brigade was co-located with the LHDs at Darwin it would have a much higher response time for the full amphib task force than the current initial plans.

You can't have the amphib battlegroup rotate within a single brigade. Due to all the enablers, it would have to be some sort of super brigade to have three of everything. The amphib-specific organisation (ie, what will be based on 2 RAR) only needs to be able to rotate the ARE, not the full ARG. All the extras need to turn to 2 RAR into the full ARG will come from the online brigade. Considering the ARG is a one-shot capability, and if it is ever deployed it will be the ADF main effort, it's not that big a deal.

Making the amphib specific unit bigger than it needs to be actually decreases the ability to rotate the force, as it would create circles within circles and double up capability with the fighting brigades.

 

[aussienscale]

Raven, while you're right about the age and decrepit nature of the current USMC AAV-7's, Samsung are producing new-build and upgraded Korean AAV-7A1's, whilst BAE are studying a refurbished and upgraded USMC fleet of AAV-7's. There are options to improve the capabilities of these vehicles.

I'm sure if we purchased 18-24 of them at some future point, we could probably afford to have them refurbished and upgraded via BAE to make them reasonably reliable and capable vehicles.

Correct, not sure of the current status of the program (will have a look later tonight) but the AAV upgrade program was announced when the EFV was cancelled, it is simular in concept to what they do with the M1's, in that BAE will strip them down to the bare aluminium hull and basically rebuild them to effectively zero the unit. The program will include more powerfull engines (with a hopefull increase in land and water speed), comms, aircon, suspension etc.

IIRC Abe also posted a link or info to this 6-9 months ago ? The USMC currently has approx 1,300 AAV's, I don't see them upgrading all of them, so the potential for us to purchase 24 ish AAV's and have BAE do the upgrades locally would not be a big ask, this will give us the experience in these operations with view to potential buys for the USMC ACV program. Read the other night that demonstrators will begin testing in the next few month's

 

[aussienscale]

Gooogle Fu not really working well tonight, could not find anything official but here is a quote and link to DID on the above

"Until the ACV is ready, the Amtracs will soldier on. The AAV Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) aims to add better protection, a modern power-train, and higher capacity suspension components. Another gap in the current force is the current turret, which is unstabilized, and can’t be fired accurately on the move. Costs and scope are still under evaluation, but the goal is to run the AAV7 SLEP program from 2012-2021.

With the ACV not even slated to begin production until 2020, and even the MPC not slated to make a difference until 2018-2020, the AAV7 SLEP becomes critical to the corps. During the next decade, any serious problems in the Amtracs fleet could leave the US Marines in a difficult position indeed.

If AAV7 Amtracs had to be built new, the last AAV7 Amtracs were produced for Brazil in the 1990s. The cost range in those-year dollars was $2.2 – 2.5 million per vehicle. Without factoring in production restart costs (or any capability upgrades for the modern battlefield), that figure translates into about $3.5 million per vehicle in today’s dollars."

The USMC’s Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

I know I have seen official notice of the program, but just not finding it at the moment

Cheers

 

[Navor86]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AS concern grows that the army could be cut by as many as three battalions to speed Labor's return to surplus

Is this true that they basically plan to cut ca. 50% of the Infantry? Especially since they announced Berheeba just a few months ago.

 

[Raven22]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Is this true that they basically plan to cut ca. 50% of the Infantry? Especially since they announced Berheeba just a few months ago.

They're not going to cut three infantry battalions, at least not in the short term. The government needs to save money now for the surplus, cutting infantry battalions will not achieve this. Infantry battalions are expensive due to the 700 odd soldiers they contain. The government can't just sack 2100 soldiers. It would take 3+ years for natural attrition to cut this number, even if they completely stopped recruiting.

Also, the government couldn't do it until the new white paper comes out. The current white paper, written by this government, states the Army is to contain 10 battle groups. Cutting three battalions, or even one, would invalidate their own white paper. More over the government wouldn't cut three battalions as it would not be popular. They have been trying to tell everyone that the budget cuts aren't affecting capability. Cutting half the army is too obvious a cut to capability to go unnoticed. Even this inept opposition should be able to make an issue out of it. The ADA certainly would - you can't cut a bunch of battalions that have just returned from Afghanistan, and they all have.

The government might cut sub-units, take away weapons, take away ammo and stop training to save money. They won't cut units. All bets are off when the new white paper comes out though. Mind you, by then the government will have only a few months left before they are kicked out of office, so it shouldn't be able to do too much damage.

 

[macman]

New Amphibious Assault Vehicle

If we are looking for a new Amphibious Assault Vehicle wouldn't we better looking at a wheeled solution rather than a tracked one, emphasizing mobility.

Something like the German/Polish Hipopotam 8x8 seems like a better fit for local conditions & use than the AAV-7 or the heavy assault focused EFV.
Asian Defense: Hipopotam 8x8 heavy amphibious wheeled armoured personnel carrier
Hipopotam 8x8

 

[Raven22]

If we are looking for a new Amphibious Assault Vehicle wouldn't we better looking at a wheeled solution rather than a tracked one, emphasizing mobility.

Something like the German/Polish Hipopotam 8x8 seems like a better fit for local conditions & use than the AAV-7 or the heavy assault focused EFV.
Asian Defense: Hipopotam 8x8 heavy amphibious wheeled armoured personnel carrier
Hipopotam 8x8

There's a big difference between this Hipopotam and the AAV/EFV. One is limited to swimming around in the deep end of the pool, and the other is a ship to shore connector and can do beach assaults. The Australian Army has no use for the former.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If we are looking for a new Amphibious Assault Vehicle wouldn't we better looking at a wheeled solution rather than a tracked one, emphasizing mobility.

Something like the German/Polish Hipopotam 8x8 seems like a better fit for local conditions & use than the AAV-7 or the heavy assault focused EFV.

The Hippo 8x8 is not a sea going, beach crossing amphibian.

There is nothing wrong with the level of mobility provided by tracks for the amphibious group. Since they are being deployed in theatre and even operationally within the theatre by the amphibious ships they don’t need the high strategic and operational speed/range advantage provided by wheels. What they do need is the ability to cross a shoreline. For this tracks are almost a necessity.

 

[Volkodav]

The Hippo 8x8 is not a sea going, beach crossing amphibian.

There is nothing wrong with the level of mobility provided by tracks for the amphibious group. Since they are being deployed in theatre and even operationally within the theatre by the amphibious ships they don’t need the high strategic and operational speed/range advantage provided by wheels. What they do need is the ability to cross a shoreline. For this tracks are almost a necessity.

Apparently a group called "Land Power Australia" is proposing a zero lifed, up-armoured, re-engined LVT1 for service with the ADFs upgraded amphibious capability. The program is based on vehicles currently stored in museums and gunnery ranges around the country as well as others to be recovered from various battlefields throughout the South Pacific.

 

[Marc 1]

{Checks date not April 1st...}

Oh now I see...

Apparently a group called "Air Power Australia" is proposing a zero lifed, up-armoured, re-engined LVT1 for service with the ADFs upgraded amphibious capability. The program is based on vehicles currently stored in museums and gunnery ranges around the country as well as others to be recovered from various battlefields throughout the South Pacific.

That explains it. Probably to be followed by re-engined re-lifed supercruising Spitfires...

 

[aussienscale]

{Checks date not April 1st...}

Oh now I see...



That explains it. Probably to be followed by re-engined re-lifed supercruising Spitfires...

Followed by "Sea Power Australia's" plans to re-float the Perth Class DDG's and the Adelaide Class FFG's as a back up plan to further delay's to the Hobart AWD's :duel

 

[Volkodav]

Followed by "Sea Power Australia's" plans to re-float the Perth Class DDG's and the Adelaide Class FFG's as a back up plan to further delay's to the Hobart AWD's :duel

They have already patented a conceptual SPY 3 / AEGIS update for the former HMAS Vampire with rail guns replacing the Mk6 4.5" twins and laser phalanx and 40mm CTA RWS replacing the Bofors mounts. As there was no room for a strike length VLS a total of 8 SM6 would be housed in a pair of modified ABLs situated in place of the old Limbo deck house. A version using SPY 1F is being developed for use on the former HMAS Diamantina.

Of particular interest to myself is the proposal from "LPA" to develop armoured exoskeletons for the Australian Whaler horse to provide a mount for our revitalised, re-imagined Light Horse regiments. The greatest difficulty appears to be developing a suitable camouflage to suit the slouch hat and emu plume.